Readers' comments

I love your site and your tutorials!! I already follow you and I would like to see more cakes geared toward the adult male or themes appropriate for them other than just the ordinary sports cake. I would love to see any suggestions you have! :)

‘…In other words, the very nature of these states and societies would have to change in the next years, and this includes both political and cultural changes.
The system in France is de facto socialist, with the state accounting for over half of the economic activity. If you look at the number of hours worked in France, and relate to this figure in terms of unemployment and covert unemployment, you'll come up with frightening real-life figures, equivalent to the Italian and Spanish ones.’ [Pez D Spencer]

I have noticed that gentlemen of an American inclination use the word ‘socialist’ as an alternative to evidence and thought. As a sparring-partner of Marie-Clear on occasions beyond counting, I believe I’m entitled to put you firmly in your place: you see, France is VERY FAR INDEED from being the wretched botch-job you seek to portray. (I hope you are reading this, Marie-Clear!) The pity is, France is capable of so very much more. But then she wouldn’t be wilful, charming, temperamental, eternal France. As they say, ‘Vive la difference!’ and, as the Brit retorts, ‘Vive la Manche!’ [May the English Channel last a very long time!]

'Isn't Socialism an ideology, in the sense that it is a political system based on belief and a set of moral standards?
As such, wouldn't it by definition be alternative to evidence and thought?' [Pez D Spencer]

It's rather bracing to meet somebody with such an eccentric outlook. And very sad. Have you heard of Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes? It's not that I'm trying to convert you; it's more that you should make more of an effort to join the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's been going on a while, surely you've heard the good news?

‘Isn't Socialism an ideology, in the sense that it is a political system based on belief and a set of moral standards? / As such, wouldn't it by definition be alternative to evidence and thought?' [Pez D Spencer]

There are various half-baked doctrines floating around which have in common facile notions of ‘entitlement’. There’s a slippery slope here, of which we should beware. That said, I detect no over-riding threat to competitiveness posed by a protective State. TV images of the extremes of poverty and wealth in the United States do everything but enhance the reputation of that great nation.

Reform of the French economy is a misnomer.
What requires a reform is French society, as a whole, and the way the French understand the work 'state', and the relationship between the state and the citizens, business sphere, elites, etc.
The French have been deluding themselves for many decades, and their elites have placed France several steps beyond a point of no return - economically speaking.
France has been busy for too long trying to play its 'historic role' on the international scene, with too much disregard for real-world facts.
When the French wake up, they'll find themselves in the dumpster, pretty much like the Greeks, Italians, and Spaniards.

Well considering that they are ahead of the Brits in term of overall GDP, GDP per person, they have a lower budget deficit, lower government debts, higher worker productivity, bigger exports...
maybe you should have said " when the French wake up, they'll find themselves in the dumpster, pretty much like the Brits."

Marie Claire (a.k.a. "Clear")
If you're looking for reliable information, I would like to suggest you read the above article by Charlemagne, for a start.
Then, try to recall how the stories unfolded in the cases of Greece, Italy and Spain. You'd find the similarities are striking.
First, there were huge, irresponsible mistakes made over a long period of time (decades), and by governments from different parties. Then, when the dirt started spilling out from beneath the rug, the leaders showed 'admirable' confidence.
In the third act, when the **** hit the fan, there was a notion that everything could be dealt with through monetary policy combined with some self restraint and good will.
You're welcome to believe in that, if you wish, but reality is still there, and in reality, things are not working, and these countries are facing a full blown social crisis, and not just an economic, or political one.
In other words, the very nature of these states and societies would have to change in the next years, and this includes both political and cultural changes.
The system in France is de facto socialist, with the state accounting for over half of the economic activity. If you look at the number of hours worked in France, and relate to this figure in terms of unemployment and covert unemployment, you'll come up with frightening real-life figures, equivalent to the Italian and Spanish ones.

The Brits have less debt to GDP, falling unemployment, and have cut the deficit by a1\4 the French are living cloud cuckoo land, what should be funny is watching the Germans order them how to pull themselves out of the mess they created..

if Charlemagne wasn't a opinion media! never saw a Economist article favorable to France, who doesn't worship its neo-liberal globalist policies advocating, richness for the 1% of the Elitist businesses owners, and poverty for the maximum of the pople

Why do Latin countries ( FR, ES, IT) produce perfume, wine, fashion goods ( clothes , bags) etc, whereas Teutonic countries produce machine, cars, Electronic products and defense equipment ? I am afraid, France / Spain sans tourism would not be much better than Czech / Poland. As far as fashion products are concerned, they get psychological favour. I bet, same quality bags from China, India or Korea will be valued far lower by buyers. These Latin countries are considered to be the fountain head of Western civilization. Hence their products have the invisible X factor of Latin elegance, which Asian products would lack.

I was trying to be humourous actually. But you are correct. My only comment would be that Cologne is in many ways more like the Low Countries than any other major German metropole. It has a pretty vibrant arts scene. I lived there for about 7 years in the 1970s and still visit every time when traveling Europe. The Lugwig and Schnutgen Museums are particularly notable. Its always been the home of expats who made the local culture unique, like Johann Farina the Italian who created the orginal Eau du Cologne.

How ironic, France is implementing, under a socialist regime, the very same measures as Sarkozy suggested but never managed to pull through due to militant unions. Germany was actually the same story 10 yrs ago; It took a left-wing government to implement the so called Agenda2010, which was the back-bone of structural changes that underpinned the late success in German employment.

Hollande was cornered, intellectually speaking, this lent him political courage. And we should all applaud his bravery and honestly.

One little 'bemol' [hitch], a Cartesian approach would have started with the flab: wastage in state expenditure, pointless munificence - what does EDF spend on 'jollies' for the staff,handed out by the 'comite d'entreprise', for instance, all paid for by the electricity consumer, including businesses?

And then, just as gaping, all those and income-tax loopholes, 'niches fiscales'. 500 different flavours, unless I'm greatly mistaken.

(P.S. My sudden erudition is thanks to a certain Ms Pedder, who's just published a gem of a little book called, 'Le deni francais'.)

‘Mr Gallois’ report, delivered to the government on Monday, advised that the social charges that force French labour costs up to uncompetitive levels should simply be cut. He argued that this should be done in one or at most two years. The government has instead further complicated an already byzantine fiscal system by adding yet another tax break, and phased it in over three years.’ [FT, 6-11-12]

But thanks to the liberal snake oil, long since gobbled down and digested, EDF is no longer under the State's thumb... please complain to the right culprits.

If Ms Pedder, TE correspondent on the front lines, is also this article's author as I would suspect, her undoubted knowledge and great talent are not matched by her evenmindedness, as I had to observe. She's one of the last Crusaders...

Time to recognize that the Socialists are not necessarily the clueless dwarves she loves to portray, buffeted by the markets and driven by ancient hatreds.

‘But thanks to the liberal snake oil, long since gobbled down and digested, EDF is no longer under the State's thumb... please complain to the right culprits.
If Ms Pedder, TE correspondent on the front lines, is also this article's author as I would suspect, her undoubted knowledge and great talent are not matched by her evenmindedness, as I had to observe. She's one of the last Crusaders... [Dominique II]
First, you sound like the resuscitated remains of that that mammoth found this week. Second, such is the Mummy-state’s clammy hand in France that EDF by government insistence overcharges its French customers by at least one per cent – this to fund worker perks, aka ‘comités d’entreprise’ [works councils]. (One of the many features of the industrial relations landscape for which we have to thank the far-sighted the Vichy regime! Americans get France wrong: it’s not so much ‘socialistic’ as ‘corporatist’, just like Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal used to be.)
In other countries, works councils [comités d’entreprise, CdE] concern themselves with working-hours, conditions, and pay. In France, this network functions as a second social security service with a budget of some 15 billion euros per year. Now, this is the good bit Dominique: the works council of EDF (the ‘privatised’ but monopolistic electricity provider for France) is itself sooo huge that the 3,120 employees working for the CdE have their own (little) CdE. The Électricité de France works council has an income of half a billion euros per annum to disburse to the (already feather-bedded and well-rewarded) 650,000 EFD employees.
Rarely have I heard the phrase ‘consumers’ rights’ used in France. As sure as eggs is eggs, the French utility consumer is getting screwed left, right, and centre. Not many people know this, Dominique: it is my experience that the average French consumer, far from being a ‘rouspéteur’ [grumbler] or a ‘revendicateur’ [someone who demands his rights], is in point of actual fact, an extremely cowed creature and more than willing to be pushed around.

EDF today, and since a couple of decades don't hire workers in such priviledged statute, besides EDF relies very much on subcontractors for doing what was the usual EDF workers job, like Endel...for the nuclear sites.

Also each region has its own distribution autonom office, managed like any enterprises, it has to make benefits.

So one can say that the glorious times of the CGT and its comités d'Entreprises are dead, or are dying slowly

you forget that EDF isn't under the french laws anymore it's under EU's, as its distribution nets are interconnected with the european countries, even in UK !

'EDF today, and since a couple of decades don't hire workers in such priviledged statute, besides EDF relies very much on subcontractors for doing what was the usual EDF workers job, like Endel...for the nuclear sites.' [Marie Clear]

Very interesting.

'you forget that EDF isn't under the french laws anymore it's under EU's, as its distribution nets are interconnected with the european countries, even in UK !

'So don't make your old radotage, you're like the neiges d'antan' [Marie]

I have no idea what a mammoth sounded like, your wisdom and recollections serve you well there.

However all your anti-EDF charge does not dispel the fact that it is not Government-run. It's a big fat corporation, headed by a Sarkozy appointee and sycophant. So its workers have managed to stay entrenched and keep strongholds? More power to them. Call them savvy and organized. Isn't what we're all supposed to be? True, the State is a major shareholder, and as such, the CEO's pay has been capped. Mr. Proglio squealed but bizarrely, he did not take his unique expertise to greener pastures, strange, don't you think? aren't our beloved owners supposed to be in such demand on the world exec market that they can turn down their noses at such crimes of lèse-majesté and leave?

Competition has been introduced, under EU orders. With no exception, they have proved to be sleazy small-time operators, relying on subsidies to a fearful extent, and on swindling the elderly for the rest. Their favorite ploy, in their relentless call-center merchandising, is to pretend they are EDF subsidiaries! Google "EDF bleu ciel appels téléphoniques" and see for yourself the reality of the so-called energy free market. People are desperate to get off their list!

The one and only reasonable solution is to fully take back EDF under the State's authority, and quash the parasites. I may be a mammoth, mon ami, but you're an archosaur if not a paleosaur.

‘However all your anti-EDF charge does not dispel the fact that it is not Government-run. It's a big fat corporation, headed by a Sarkozy appointee and sycophant. So its workers have managed to stay entrenched and keep strongholds? More power to them. Call them savvy and organized. Isn't what we're all supposed to be?’ [Dominique II]

Same difference, Dominique:

‘Following a European directive of June 2003, a public establishment of an industrial and commercial created by the state, she changed her status on 19 November 2004 , becoming a limited company with public capital.’ [‘À la suite d'une directive européenne de juin 2003, d'un établissement public à caractère industriel et commercial créé par l'État, elle a changé de statut, le 19 novembre 2004, devenant une société anonyme à capitaux publics’]

BTW, many British customers of EDF are very grateful to their long-suffering French counterparts of theirs who subsidise their bills by allowing themselves to be overcharged. The French consumer is submissive and cowed, have no doubt about it.

Employees of EDF continue to enjoy the particularly juicy fringe-benefits they have always enjoyed as quasi-State employees. The French tax-payer, cowed and submissive, is also constantly being ripped off. I feel rather sorry for him, over-protected as (s)he is.

One thing stands out in glaring contradiction with the way the French economy is run: Delacroix’s picture of ‘Liberty leading the People’ (1830) is as make-believe as ever.

"Delacroix’s picture of ‘Liberty leading the People’ (1830) is as make-believe as ever"

Better a fantasy Liberty than a frumpy Boudicca.

I don't get how it is "make-believe" though - do you really think allegories were produced and marketed as factual? Now I understand better why the fable of the Benevolent Invisible Hand took such a hold in your climes. Talk about gullible.

But somehow, German labor still got paid well and continued good benefits. What makes German capitalism different, that it works so well for them? They did not purge all their middle-aged workers there after labor reforms unlike the United States.

"For electricity, the UK is fourth cheapest with an average price of 12.89 pence per kilowatt hour (p per kWh). France sits at the bottom of the list with an average of 10.15p per kWh. This can be put down to the country’s reliance on nuclear power - France has 58 operational nuclear power reactors, the second highest number worldwide behind America."

'Talk about gullible' [Dominique II]
On the contrary, Dominique. I write as neutral adjudicator here. In general, the Brit is un-plagued by questions of identity, often sub-categorising thus: Yorkshire-English-British, or Welsh-speaking Brit, or can't-stand-the-Sassenach-Scot.
And you, I imagine, are about to tell me that this exactly the same is true in Brittany-France.
The latest of the internal contradictions which will not be denied: the 19 March commemoration date that excludes 'pieds noirs' and 'Harkis' from the anniversary, because FOR THEM the 19 March 1962 did not signal the end. I remember, several years later, having a 'Harki' camp pointed out to me, along with deep indignation at the way these people had been more or left to rot.
It's not so much a question of these internal cleavages existing - hell this was the period of the Civil Rights movement in the States! - it’s that there is in France a constant normative force, widely embraced, yet gainsaid by significant minorities or unambiguous factual realities.
The majority French – cowed – often embrace the official fictions which give them a comfortable sense of belonging. The pity of this ‘Authorised Version’ is that it is often bosh. And taking liberties with historical fact is fraught with dangers for the future.
The cabinet minister of Sarkozy’s – a minister of Education, no less – who appeared to believe that the UK had been occupied by Nazi Germany, is a striking instance of the historical twilight world inhabited by many a thinking French(wo)man.

‘“This is a landmark month for the British offshore wind industry, with more than 2.6 gigawatts of wind energy now installed. It’s amazing to think that the capacity of the three offshore wind farms which have either officially opened or gone operational this month has added very nearly a gigawatt in September alone. It provides clear evidence of the extraordinary progress being made in this dynamic sector – the UK has more capacity installed offshore than the rest of the world put together, and we keep on extending that lead.’

Truth be told, I was last there in 2002. Has it changed so much? I'm assuming "mini jobs" means part-time, and I've read about some marginalization, but its workforce stability still beat most of Europe hands-down. Are the wages explicitly frozen or is it that they are denied the representation that is the norm for the full-time workforce?

Boy did you hit the nail on the head! But don't forget the French rouspète first and then "laisser tomber". It's the nature of the beast. It's all in the tchatche or as Pagnol said "Les méditérraneans parlent beaucoup pour cacher ce qu'ils ont a dire". . Mediterraneans talk a lot to hide what they really want to say. It's the opium of the people

I would like to see someone make a challenge to the extra charges we pay on EDF bill for their comité d'entreprise. They would get laughed out of the country.

"It's a big fat corporation, headed by a Sarkozy appointee and sycophant."

So didn't you just negate your comments about the EDF being independent. C'mon Dominique, you know perfectly well that major corporations in France are not entirely free of government interference. It takes one glance out of the corner of their eyes from the ruling class before the French corporate ruling class gets whipped back into shape. And what's with this exit tax BS. So you've got other electricity carriers and their relationship with purchasing electricity from EDF I personally don't know but what I do know was the at the inception of these companies the EDF stated that once you left EDF you couldn't come back. Fortunately someone got some good sense and overturned this childish schoolyard behavior.

If you think major French companies are independent you are not a dinosaur in my opinion but just plain self induced blind

‘So didn't you just negate your comments about the EDF being independent. C'mon Dominique, you know perfectly well that major corporations in France are not entirely free of government interference.’ [Rivierarocket]

There’s a certain something in your words which suggests personal experience of the downs and ups of doing business in France, the standing example to all and sundry but not on Sunday. Much as I love skirmishing with him, I doubt that Dominique has an equal awareness of commercial life in the raw. BTW, elsewhere in today’s ‘The Economist’, there’s an article on rail-transport in France: how France has been playing fast and loose with Brussels’ directives, so disadvantaging would-be competitors, for a long time. The ‘nombrilistes’ [navel-gazers] in their ‘bulle’ [soap-bubble] ought by now to have learnt that they’ve been found out:

Of course I have worked for myself since I have been in France. It only took me about three months, the time to learn the language, to realize that if I was to stay in France and stay sane, I could only work for myself. Such was the incoherence of management policy and worker - management relations. Such was the tightness of the French pocketbook constantly under the extortion of succeeding governments. Since I had employees I watched the social charges increase year after year until 1988, when I sold out, took two years off and set up a individual proprietorship in 1990. That's the way, it is and that is the way it will stay. I have no intention of ever hiring an employee in France again, not because the employees are particular bad but because the fiscal system milks any possibility for small business to expand. And it ain't gonna get better.

Have your concerned about the intergration of Eurozone , If Greece are going bankrupt, there might be most dangerous continuous effect following,edged Spain , Italy ,Potugue etc ,which will sewing seeds of next crisis.

Founded by Armand Jean du Plessis, cardinal-duc de Richelieu et de Fronsac himself (Ah, sorry: I mean the tall man with the cat in The Three Musketeers). Fine warships, submarines &c., I assure you. With a revenue of € 2.600 billion and a profit of 198 million euros in 2011 they can pay for as many escargots and perfumes as they like...

The French minimum wage is fantastic: €9.22/ hour ($11.80/ hour). A rich and prosperous country should certainly be able to provide abundant work at this level or remuneration for all its citizens (however young; however old; however skilled; whatever the requirements for in-kind support or training). The only trouble is, France is not yet such a prosperous place - unemployment's at 11%, and many more (especially the old, the young, immigrants, the less educated and women with young children) are excluded from the workforce.

The French government definitely needs to become more flexible or more active here. If €9.22/ hour is to be maintained, then it probably needs to be supported by a public subsidies for work (e.g. employees are guaranteed 30 hours/ week at €9.22/ hour, and unemployed workers are put out to tender - so unemployed people are offered the highest paying job, receive at least €9.22/ hour for the first 30 hours, and the government pays the minimum amount required to support this guaranteed job offer).

But beyond that, there should be no minimum wage for overtime (if workers want to work additional hours at lower rates - perhaps for training, perhaps for extra cash - so be it. And there should be no cap on working hours - the choice has to be for individuals to freely decide how much time they spend adding value.

Get the above reforms through, and achieve the following:
- lower unemployment
- reduced welfare spending
- increased working hours, value added, GDP and tax revenue
- more competitive market for business, with more investment and better export performance
- space for entrepreneurs able to best extract value from presently excluded workers when bidding and then mobilising/ preparing/ training/ deploying
- more human capital development, more skill acquisition and a brighter future for millions of French citizens

Best thing is, all of the policies proposed above mesh very well with the normal socialist narrative - so Hollande's government would look good if it passed them. But also a set of liberalising reform that'd be great for French business, trade and GDP. Gonna do it?

There's no such thing as forced labour. If overtime is not contractually obliged, then it's voluntary.

Thing is, in a finite world, social subsidy is only reasonable for up to a certain amount of work. Beyond that, if I'm working extra hours, I should only be remunerated for the market value of that work; and there should be no bureaucratic restrictions (otherwise, it won't happen and value creation opportunity will be lost).

If you honestly say to your employer: "no overtime please - I've got a young family and enjoy gardening..." what's the worst that can happen? As an employer, surely your employer wants to be frank, honest, and maintain a well motivated workforce - a competent employer is hardly going to force your hand (ultimately, they don't have the power to make you).

But for those of us who would gladly work additional hours on very low pay working in a different capacity to our primary job (e.g. working with the software development team or legal team to build some extra experience), surely it is not the place of government to obstruct that?

"As an employer, surely your employer wants to be frank, honest, and maintain a well motivated workforce"

You have much to learn about the realities of the labour market, which can be stark.

I know a lot of employers who fit your description, or would like to; but they compete with others who know the full meaning of a dominant position, and see it as their duty to abuse it. Guess which model is bound to win on the marketplace?

The employers with the better output/input ratio (i.e. highest margins) will tend to win in the marketplace.

That might mean bullying staff into extra hours (cheaper than recruiting - especially if social protections are high) - but skilled work isn't a commodity (demanding more time generally means less effort and poor retention).

Over the long run, businesses with higher productivity and better working conditions - able to poach the best staff - will tend to win.

Just look at the success of Google (4 days working week), BMW (flexible hours and 4 day basic working week), ARM, Tesco (completely free worker choice over hours), etc.

Productivity isn't about working hours. Good businesses realise that, and consider flexibility and worker choice to be part of their recruitment strategy (improve retention, raise skill levels, raise motivation).

In many industries and businesses, increasingly, workers are free to determine their working hours.

If that isn't the case in France as it is in the UK and Germany, perhaps government bureaucracy (e.g. high implicit liabilities in employing a new worker, or high fixed costs in having a worker) are part of the reason?

Sure - a firm has many possible punitive measures. They could also play bad music, or send somebody who smells bad to work next to you.

Thing is, basing punishments and rewards on willingness to work X hours, would actually be incredibly incompetent. They risk demotivating skilled workers, losing potential opportunities for adding value (e.g. sending the best-fitting workers to head a new project), etc. If your office managers are that petty and small minded, then your business probably won't be successful or profitable in the long run - you should probably look to find another job or start your own business.

'I know a lot of employers who fit your description, or would like to; but they compete with others who know the full meaning of a dominant position, and see it as their duty to abuse it. Guess which model is bound to win on the marketplace?' [Dominique II]

If French employers are as lacking in understanding and sympathy as you claim, this suggests that 220 years and 4 revolutions, not to mention a blood-curdling national anthem, have all been singularly unhelpful. You make France sound quite Dickensian.

I'm only uncomfortable with that because I'm a direct beneficiary of low paid work - I've put in over a thousand long hours on extremely low pay (about €1.20/ hour), and in exchange have been given training and opportunities far beyond what my level of experience would merit.

Plus I now have a good network of other entrepreneurs, software developers, etc and am aware of many opportunities that I previously wasn't. That experience places me quite well to run a startup business (well I hope it does - we'll see how it performs in due course).

I obtained far more than money from that work - though I couldn't have done it if it was entirely unpaid, and that particular employer did not have a financial position that would have allowed it to pay any reasonable minimum wage.

Now I'm also in a position where I can take on UK workers, but limited working capital means that I'd rather pay primarily in equity (I have some interested and capable students willing to join-up part time). If I also want to pay out some cash incentives to part time student workers, I'm on dodgy legal ground (it would be paid work, below the minimum wage level). Frankly, I wish bureaucrats would just get out the way of progress - at very least, we should be free to sign away our legal claim to receive the minimum wage.

A minimum wage in the UK meant that I had to emigrate (temporarily) for this kind of opportunity; and existence of the minimum wage is obstructing my offering of similar opportunities to students in the UK - it destroys value and hurts (some of) the poor, so I really can't support the existence of a universal uncompromising minimum wage.

I like the principle - it would be fantastic if we all received high material compensation for every hour of our time. And it's something the government should certainly fight for - ensuring that everyone is able to earn a good standard of living through labour. (I'm even comfortable with the idea that this means improving the bargaining power of workers at the same time as building skills and productivity.) But absolute uncompromising enforcement of a minimum wage creates its own social problems, hurts income mobility and creates barriers to entry for new businesses.

And you can surely understand the opposition to regulation of hours too.

When I was 17 in the summer before going to university, I wasn't old enough to legally waive the right to a maximum 40 hour working week.

That meant that rather than work one factory job and take overtime (on which they would have paid me 150% pay), I had to take two jobs (one packaging potatoes; the other packaging fish) without telling either about the other job (only way I could break the law & work the hours).

That's how I funded my first year at university - without working 65 hour weeks over the summer, I would have struggled financially in first year at university (in practice, I was forced out mostly for financial & housing reasons during 2nd year - and had to start again in a location where I could bunk with relatives).

In any case, people choosing to work extra hours generally make that choice because they really need the money - and so freedom to work additional hours tends to reduce income inequality in any country. It's a liberty that matters most for the poorest.

Most French employers I know are actually decent and caring. But in a deregulated free-for-all, they would have to align with their predatory competition.

Glad the anthem sounds blood-curdling to foreign ears: it was its purpose. It is not an anthem of civil war, like the Internationale, which urges killing fellowcountrymen; it was the adequate response to very serious threats of widespread slaughter by invading armies - never read the Brunswick Manifesto? It needs to be taken in that historical context, rather than to be changed to some kind of free-market Kumbaya.

All human beings should be expected to independently choose the skill sets they wish to develop, and allocate a portion of their time (both free time and work time) in pursuit of those goals. That's not unusual - it's something that all workers (or entrepreneurs) have to do just to be competent (whatever they're doing - unless it really is low-wage factory work, in which case the focus of personal development should be preparing for a more productive role). The whole point of school education should be teaching kids how to set goals and learn independently in this manor.

No, the marginal price of labour doesn't collapse when workers are free to work arbitrary hours. For the simple reason that productivity doesn't collapse when workers choose to work longer hours. Work creates its own demand - you seem to be trapped in the lump sum of labour fallacy.

In any case, average working hours fall with rising affluence, even in absence of government regulation. Well paid workers choose to spend less time working - see Germany (esp. West Germany), the Netherlands and Norway, all have higher incomes than the French, don't have the strict enforcement of maximum working hours as in France, and all work far fewer hours than the French.

Over time, as countries get richer, average working hours are falling rapidly everywhere.

The world would not end if the minimum wage was abolished and restrictions on working hours were removed. Over the long term, people would continue to work ever fewer hours and receive ever higher wages (thanks to rising productivity, and the "superior good" nature of leisure).

Bureaucrats might or might not have a useful role to play in improving the bargaining power of less skilled workers (yes - I also agree that it's important economically as well as socially to have a broad affluent market, even where this is partially achieved through transfer payments, or through encouraging firms to pay workers more and top management less).

That might take the place of a recommended minimum wage, with naming and shaming of cases of non-compliance (very bad PR for routine workers in big consumer-facing firms - but more socially acceptable for startups, researchers, short term work placements, skills-building cross-placements in other departments, innovators etc).

Could perhaps also take the form above, where the government provides a work guarantee for 30 hours or so at a particular minimum wage - and anything beyond that is at the discretion of individuals & businesses (skilled workers earning more than the minimum can probably make better hours & pay decisions than bureaucrats).

But absolute government-set restrictions on working hours, and absolute government-set restrictions on pay, restrict opportunity, damage the economy, constrain access to the labour market, harm productivity growth and limit income mobility. For these reasons, they should go.

(The fact that this would also lift tax revenue, cut the deficit and support the social system are just on-the-side bonuses.)

(Though conceded: the average Irish worker works 67 hours/ year longer than the average French worker.)

France, on the other hand, has better food, less obesity, and a life expectancy 13 months longer than Ireland's.
http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:FRA&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+france#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:FRA:IRL&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

Realistically, Sweden and Denmark are better role models for France than Ireland is. And yet, both countries have found that more liberal markets, more support of business, less regulation and lower corporate tax rates (against a backdrop of very progressive income tax, transfers & investment in human capital) are all more conducing to lower levels of inequality and higher standards of living.

(At least I enjoyed it - it certainly makes good points on the need for better governance, deregulation, longer working lives, easier conditions for starting businesses, etc. Precisely because these are the reforms that allow more redistribution of income, less inequality and higher living standards. Other points made by the article are bang on the mark too.)

Apparently Shaun39 has not been in the USA lately, where uncompensated overtime is the new norm in the workplace. That overtime is indeed coerced. Much in the same way that corporations can "volunteer" their labor for political activity (even contrary to invididual conscience) much as they used to for local community cleanup or charitable work. The only result that "no overtime please.." will get you there is unemployment. Truly...

Shaun, you can argue with Dominique until you turn blue in the face, present facts etc but he belongs to this group of French socialistically imbibed nipple suckers who only see the relationship between labor and management as one of atavistic class struggle so permeated throughout the French mentality since the days of childhood. They call it solidarity. I call it extortion. They call it democracy. I call it a successful Soviet model in Western Europe.

The article's author is presumably well informed about French politics; therefore, hinting that the Gallois report and the IMF report came out of the blue to "rudely awaken" the French and the French Govt is less than candid.

The issue of competitiveness has been a red hot one for months, and TE might even have mentioned recurrent rumors of a forthcoming degrading of France's creditworthiness by Moody's. True, the right (which did precious nothing about industrial downfall for years, except grab as much as it could while there was time left) is shrill with cantankerous Schadenfreude, but the left has definitely not been complacent. Who, after all, ordered the Gallois report?

In the same way, the left's "hostility to business" is mainly a fantasy of certain media and organizations - Le Canard Enchaîné reported that a number of chief executives were more than a little embarrassed by the apocalyptic tone of their nominal leader, MEDEF's Parisot.

Decisions ("arbitrages") have not been taken yet about the idea of a "competitiveness shock". They are however expected to be taken shortly.

But it must be stressed that the perceived gap between Gallois' proposal and the less abrupt ideas currently being mulled at the top is one of means to achieve an agreed goal, rather than an ideological chiasm.

France has had several experiences of "shocks" being administered to ailing industries, with grandiose forecasting of bountiful improvement by business leaders, followed by no results as the collective effort was directly transmogrified into private profit, without any investment or hiring as promised. Brutally injecting tens of billions in a decrepit industrial sector may be a good idea, but it may also be the equivalent of overfeeding a person dying of inanition, or pouring tons of water on dried soil. If it has to be done, much thought has to be given to accompanying measures, to ensure, and if needed enforce, an utilization of this manna more congruent with its purpose than the quick and ephemerous fattening of bottom lines.

"Brutally injecting tens of billions in a decrepit industrial sector may be a good idea, but it may also be the equivalent of overfeeding a person dying of inanition, or pouring tons of water on dried soil."

In this case, we're talking about reducing taxes on all labour, not subsidising a national champion - are you comparing all French enterprise to a decrepit industrial sector?
If not, then I assume you'll find considerable support for your ideas among the readers of The Economist: you're basically saying the government shouldn't throw money at a closing car-parts factory near Paris.

-------

Your point about the right being just as rubbish as the left is well taken (why do you think so few people even bother to vote in elections). I actually think a socialist government with a strong majority has the best chance of passing long overdue reforms.

-------

"hinting that the Gallois report and the IMF report came out of the blue to "rudely awaken" the French and the French Govt is less than candid.
The issue of competitiveness has been a red hot one for months"

The Economist repeatedly bemoaned the fact that competitiveness had not even been mentioned during the presidential elections and that French politicians were either oblivious to the problem or refused to discuss it in front of voters. It's great that the problem is now acknowledged, but give credit where it is due: this is the most urgent issue facing France, and TE had said so when nobody else wanted to.

Taking Germany as a model of competitiveness should hit a raw nerve in France and spur some action due to the two countries' proximity and ties. Citing far-away economies (geographically and culturally, too) like the United States might have dismissed the reports' suggestions as impracticable.
But for all this attention on government-induced reforms, another implication of the Gallois paper is that businesses can structurally change the economy as well.
As a recent article in The Economist said on this topic, France misses a "Mittelstand" but we should not forget that large German firms have also led the drive for competitiveness (just look at VW's solidarity contracts in the early 1990s, which set the pace for labour market reforms later on).
I wonder if companies can play this role in a country like France, where "les énarques" have so much clout and business leaders are intertwined with politicians and senior government officials.

Perfectly true. Awful relationships within enterprises are a well-known and costly brake on competitiveness. Business leaders cannot escape their responsibilities in this regard (and neither can, in a less blatant way, union leaders).

A large part of German competitiveness has been won through extensive process outsourcing (for lower value manufacture, assembly, etc) to Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

By accessing markets with lower taxes, lower wages, less regulation and cheaper energy, German firms have been able to lift their profits, allowing more employment, more security and better conditions for German workers (though admittedly, this same outsourcing activity has helped to restrain wage demands in recent years - that dynamic now seems to have reversed thanks to high corporate profits).

Likewise, French firms need to restructure, adopt new technologies and automate production, outsource processes to cheaper production locations (in order to raise profits and create employment opportunities in France), and market intensively to overseas markets.

It isn't as though French corporate management is less competent than that of German firms - French businesses also see the massive market opportunities in Eastern Europe, in Spain and in Morocco/ Tunisia/ Libya/ Egypt/ Israel/ Turkey. French firms also see the importance of improving competitive positions and marketing to East Asian markets, as well as expand in rich developed markets.

French firms see fantastic opportunities for raising profits, productivity and wages - but bureaucracy and regulation limit scope for restructuring. How easy is it for French firms to automate plants and spin off the workers to do something else? How easy is it for French firms to source components or services from lower cost locations? How easy is it for French firms to replicate success in France in other European and world markets?

Whether it be in the financial system, in soft protectionism, in tax design or employment regulation, the French government is retarding productivity and opportunity. That's not social policy - it's stagnation policy.

"Taking Germany as a model of competitiveness should hit a raw nerve in France . . ."

I doubt that the Germans would have done it under Schroeder, if the unification with a backward-economy of 17 million would not have forced them to take drastic measures, stabilizing the nation economically, thus, ultimately, politically and socially as well.

I hope not. France is hardly an example of a hard right, capitalist place, is it?

I have nothing good to say about either side/candidate. I just want to see what happens if France tries to maintain a status quo approach - it'll likely be disaster, but it should be entertaining. In the US, whatever happens won't matter or be entertaining.

OK, I get your point about France. You know that no party has embraced "don't change a thing" for a bit more than two centuries, when Royalists threw the towel. The left has been pictured as the champion of the statu quo - which is frankly inane. But all other parties, including the extreme right, also want things to change - albeit in different directions. So your thought experiment about the effects of statu quo is doomed to failure. Sorry for your entertainment. Wall Street under water might provide a worthy alternative - stay put and report on any rats jumping ship, will you?